Health and Safety at Weddings !

At a recent wedding i had to make the decision that a group shot the b&g requested had too many people for the stairs it was requested on and looked like turning into an accident and did not take the shot but rearranged it elsewhere.
This has got me to wondering we are insured liability indemnity etc however , if a photographer organizes a shot and someone should be injured whilst taking the photo who is then responsible , the photographer , the venue , the person who is injured ?
If a B&G demanded a shot you thought was unsafe and you took it and something happened what then ? has anyone ever fallen fowl of the law taking photos at weddings ? ( other than idiots being sued for garbage photos that is )

At a recent wedding i had to make the decision that a group shot the b&g requested had too many people for the stairs it was requested on and looked like turning into an accident and did not take the shot but rearranged it elsewhere.

This has got me to wondering we are insured liability indemnity etc however , if a photographer organizes a shot and someone should be injured whilst taking the photo who is then responsible , the photographer , the venue , the person who is injured ?

If a B&G demanded a shot you thought was unsafe and you took it and something happened what then ? has anyone ever fallen fowl of the law taking photos at weddings ? ( other than idiots being sued for garbage photos that is )

[quote] if a photographer organizes a shot and someone should be injured whilst taking the photo who is then responsible , the photographer , the venue , the person who is injured [/quote]
Tricky, because this would be a civil case and it is always difficult to define circumstances under which action would be successful. My view is that if it was a genuine accident, you would not be liable - but that may not stop someone trying to claim (which will probably be a scattergun approach against everyone to find who had the deepest pockets) and the impact on yourself would depend on your insurance T&C.
[quote]If a B&G demanded a shot you thought was unsafe and you took it and something happened what then [/quote]
That IMO would push at least some of the responsibility on you because by organising the group you would be instructing people to stand in a situation you already recognised as potentially unsafe (that is, reckless action by yourself).
On the other hand....you could tell the groom 'you tell them where to stand and all I will do is press the shutter' :)

Quote: if a photographer organizes a shot and someone should be injured whilst taking the photo who is then responsible , the photographer , the venue , the person who is injured

Tricky, because this would be a civil case and it is always difficult to define circumstances under which action would be successful. My view is that if it was a genuine accident, you would not be liable - but that may not stop someone trying to claim (which will probably be a scattergun approach against everyone to find who had the deepest pockets) and the impact on yourself would depend on your insurance T&C.

Quote:If a B&G demanded a shot you thought was unsafe and you took it and something happened what then

That IMO would push at least some of the responsibility on you because by organising the group you would be instructing people to stand in a situation you already recognised as potentially unsafe (that is, reckless action by yourself).
On the other hand....you could tell the groom 'you tell them where to stand and all I will do is press the shutter'

It just make you stop and think sometimes , how many times have you shot a bride and groom on a rock by the sea , on a jetty , standing at the top of stairs , there has to be an element of common sense as the B&G in my experience will just do almost anything you ask, they are entrusting some level of responsibility in you to not put them in harms way. On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.
It just makes me think maybe there should be some sort of licensing system for wedding photographers in order to keep a level of both professionalism and safety in the industry, and i don't mean societies set up to make a quick buck with a certificate and web link ;) i mean an actual test of some sort ?

It just make you stop and think sometimes , how many times have you shot a bride and groom on a rock by the sea , on a jetty , standing at the top of stairs , there has to be an element of common sense as the B&G in my experience will just do almost anything you ask, they are entrusting some level of responsibility in you to not put them in harms way. On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.

It just makes me think maybe there should be some sort of licensing system for wedding photographers in order to keep a level of both professionalism and safety in the industry, and i don't mean societies set up to make a quick buck with a certificate and web link i mean an actual test of some sort ?

[quote] On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.[/quote]
It's a wedding not The Helmand Province Garden Party!
What test would you put in place for wedding photographers? Would the criteria be that the applicant fits what a little clique of other wedding photographers see as the required quality or would it be simply that they have to prove onwnership of three Professunal cameras?

Quote: On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.

It's a wedding not The Helmand Province Garden Party!

What test would you put in place for wedding photographers? Would the criteria be that the applicant fits what a little clique of other wedding photographers see as the required quality or would it be simply that they have to prove onwnership of three Professunal cameras?

[quote]It just make you stop and think sometimes , how many times have you shot a bride and groom on a rock by the sea , on a jetty , standing at the top of stairs , there has to be an element of common sense as the B&G in my experience will just do almost anything you ask, they are entrusting some level of responsibility in you to not put them in harms way. On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.
[/quote]
Anyone remember this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194665/Maria-Pantazopoulos-Bride-drowned-wedding-dress-pictured-husband.html
She seemed to have suggested it but as you say it does make you stop and think.

Quote:It just make you stop and think sometimes , how many times have you shot a bride and groom on a rock by the sea , on a jetty , standing at the top of stairs , there has to be an element of common sense as the B&G in my experience will just do almost anything you ask, they are entrusting some level of responsibility in you to not put them in harms way. On the other hand everyone is out to get 'The' shot and sometimes that can mean an element of risk.

The same sort of test most other industries who deal with the public take Keith, its a sensible question nothing to do with cliques - and not necessarily to do with technique or style
A test / Course could for instance include:
Checking the photographer is fully insured
The basics of copyright and legalities of publishing photos with people, private land, children etc
A basic level of Health and Safety Awareness
Basic First Aid ( fainting and heat exhaustion are two common occurences during summer weddings )
A CRB check and certificate
Checking the photographer is running a registered business legally
I don't think a test of equipment or technique could be fairly constructed as this is much more individual
What do others think ?

The same sort of test most other industries who deal with the public take Keith, its a sensible question nothing to do with cliques - and not necessarily to do with technique or style

A test / Course could for instance include:

Checking the photographer is fully insured
The basics of copyright and legalities of publishing photos with people, private land, children etc
A basic level of Health and Safety Awareness
Basic First Aid ( fainting and heat exhaustion are two common occurences during summer weddings )
A CRB check and certificate
Checking the photographer is running a registered business legally

I don't think a test of equipment or technique could be fairly constructed as this is much more individual

shot my only 2013 wedding on Friday - 0 risk, she was 7 month preggers and wasn't moving fast at all!
I was at risk myself mind - shooting a DB9 across the road from them... with cars shooting by at 60...
Cool shot though... lovely sky and car... with a B&G kinda in there somewhere ;-)

[quote]
Tricky, because this would be a civil case [/quote]
If someone was injured as a result and wished to claim against you then it would be a civil case, however if someone was seriously injured both you as the photographer and the venue hosting you could potentially face criminal charges.
Having said that a quick peruse of the HSE prosecutions database using the SIC 2007 codes indicate that there has not been a single case or breach bought by the HSE for any of the codes that would be for photography (which incidentally sit under Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities rather than Arts, Entertainment and Recreation) in the past 5 years :)

Quote:
Tricky, because this would be a civil case

If someone was injured as a result and wished to claim against you then it would be a civil case, however if someone was seriously injured both you as the photographer and the venue hosting you could potentially face criminal charges.

Having said that a quick peruse of the HSE prosecutions database using the SIC 2007 codes indicate that there has not been a single case or breach bought by the HSE for any of the codes that would be for photography (which incidentally sit under Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities rather than Arts, Entertainment and Recreation) in the past 5 years

Would the HSE even be involved, i would suspect that a solicitor would be but probably only in the case of industrial photography would the HSE get involved ? I would be interesting to find out just how many cases had been brought against photographers in the last 5 years though i suspect the majority would be people claiming the photos were not up to scratch.

Would the HSE even be involved, i would suspect that a solicitor would be but probably only in the case of industrial photography would the HSE get involved ? I would be interesting to find out just how many cases had been brought against photographers in the last 5 years though i suspect the majority would be people claiming the photos were not up to scratch.

[quote]Would the HSE even be involved, i would suspect that a solicitor would be but probably only in the case of industrial photography would the HSE get involved ? I would be interesting to find out just how many cases had been brought against photographers in the last 5 years though i suspect the majority would be people claiming the photos were not up to scratch.[/quote]
As I stated there have been no cases or breaches raised by the HSE in regard to photography related SIC2007 codes in the last five years. As I stated if there were to be a serious health and safety incident the HSE would certainly be involved in the investigation of the incident and would be the 'prosecuting' party should they find enough evidence to take to court.
Whilst there are no cases relating to photographers the incident with the inflatable art structure that blew away killing two people a few years ago was prosecuted by the HSE and sits on their prosecutions database. You would have to screw up pretty badly in order for something like this to occur but you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that at some point in time in the future it will!
*Added later*
As an addendum, there were two people prosecuted in the case of the art structure, it is not clear from the database but I believe one was the artist and the other seems to be the company that 'hosted' the installation.

Quote:Would the HSE even be involved, i would suspect that a solicitor would be but probably only in the case of industrial photography would the HSE get involved ? I would be interesting to find out just how many cases had been brought against photographers in the last 5 years though i suspect the majority would be people claiming the photos were not up to scratch.

As I stated there have been no cases or breaches raised by the HSE in regard to photography related SIC2007 codes in the last five years. As I stated if there were to be a serious health and safety incident the HSE would certainly be involved in the investigation of the incident and would be the 'prosecuting' party should they find enough evidence to take to court.

Whilst there are no cases relating to photographers the incident with the inflatable art structure that blew away killing two people a few years ago was prosecuted by the HSE and sits on their prosecutions database. You would have to screw up pretty badly in order for something like this to occur but you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that at some point in time in the future it will!

*Added later*
As an addendum, there were two people prosecuted in the case of the art structure, it is not clear from the database but I believe one was the artist and the other seems to be the company that 'hosted' the installation.

Checking the photographer is fully insured
[i]Fair enough[/i]
The basics of copyright and legalities of publishing photos with people, private land, children etc
[i]Why should there be a requirement to understand copyright laws- it's not a requirement of any other branch of photography. It makes sense to know about copyright and what ever rules you think exist about children and people on private land but why they should be the subject of an industry standard test I don't know. [/i]
A basic level of Health and Safety Awareness
[i]A basic level based upon what? Anybody can tick box a set of questions based on common sense[/i].
Basic First Aid ( fainting and heat exhaustion are two common occurences during summer weddings )
[i]Not your job. A tested awareness might imply a level of involvement that you as a simple wedding photographer are unable to supply.[/i]
A CRB check and certificate
[i]Why? For what purpose? [/i]
Checking the photographer is running a registered business legally.
[i]do you ask your plumber if he pays tax[/i]

Checking the photographer is fully insured

Fair enough

The basics of copyright and legalities of publishing photos with people, private land, children etc

Why should there be a requirement to understand copyright laws- it's not a requirement of any other branch of photography. It makes sense to know about copyright and what ever rules you think exist about children and people on private land but why they should be the subject of an industry standard test I don't know.

A basic level of Health and Safety Awareness

A basic level based upon what? Anybody can tick box a set of questions based on common sense.

Basic First Aid ( fainting and heat exhaustion are two common occurences during summer weddings )

Not your job. A tested awareness might imply a level of involvement that you as a simple wedding photographer are unable to supply.

Keith,
You did not read and understand fully what I was suggesting, ie test and training.
Q.Why should there be a requirement to understand copyright laws- it's not a requirement of any other branch of photography. It makes sense to know about copyright and what ever rules you think exist about children and people on private land but why they should be the subject of an industry standard test I don't know.
A. Simple to protect the photographer and the client, there are rules and regulation when you are invited onto private land and regarding the photographing and publishing of photos of children or places which for both the sake of the clients and photographer should be know.
Q.A basic level based upon what? Anybody can tick box a set of questions based on common sense.
A. Training not test, to prevent brides being washed away down rivers. Common Sense.
S.Not your job. A tested awareness might imply a level of involvement that you as a simple wedding photographer are unable to supply.
A.The ability of anyone at an event or gathering to administer basic first aid can only be a positive. Again training not a test.
S. CRB Why? For what purpose?
A. Would have thought that was obvious. Dealing with children.
S.do you ask your plumber if he pays tax
A. And would you complain if your photographer was caught out and had to cease trading by the Inland Revenue - ermm yes you would.
Thanks for sitting on the other side of the fence though Keith its always good to have an opposing point of view lol

Keith,

You did not read and understand fully what I was suggesting, ie test and training.

Q.Why should there be a requirement to understand copyright laws- it's not a requirement of any other branch of photography. It makes sense to know about copyright and what ever rules you think exist about children and people on private land but why they should be the subject of an industry standard test I don't know.
A. Simple to protect the photographer and the client, there are rules and regulation when you are invited onto private land and regarding the photographing and publishing of photos of children or places which for both the sake of the clients and photographer should be know.

Q.A basic level based upon what? Anybody can tick box a set of questions based on common sense.
A. Training not test, to prevent brides being washed away down rivers. Common Sense.

S.Not your job. A tested awareness might imply a level of involvement that you as a simple wedding photographer are unable to supply.
A.The ability of anyone at an event or gathering to administer basic first aid can only be a positive. Again training not a test.

S. CRB Why? For what purpose?
A. Would have thought that was obvious. Dealing with children.

S.do you ask your plumber if he pays tax
A. And would you complain if your photographer was caught out and had to cease trading by the Inland Revenue - ermm yes you would.

Thanks for sitting on the other side of the fence though Keith its always good to have an opposing point of view lol

CRB does my head in.... the only time I ever had one requested was when someone was trying to get me to shoot a charity event for free - got me out of doing it without looking a "meany" ;)
if they don't trust me without one, I generally tell them to f**k off... politely

CRB does my head in.... the only time I ever had one requested was when someone was trying to get me to shoot a charity event for free - got me out of doing it without looking a "meany"

if they don't trust me without one, I generally tell them to f**k off... politely